Opinion
SJC-11576
03-17-2014
John F. ZULLO v. CULIK LAW P.C. & another.
John F. Zullo, pro se. Josef C. Culik for the defendants.
NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Civil, Small claims procedure.
John F. Zullo, pro se.
Josef C. Culik for the defendants.
RESCRIPT
John Zullo appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Zullo commenced an action in the small claims session of the District Court against his former attorney and law firm. Judgment entered for the defendants. Zullo's petition sought relief from that judgment. We have repeatedly stated that a plaintiff who chooses to proceed in the small claims session waives the right to appeal from any adverse judgment, and likewise is not entitled to invoke this court's extraordinary power of general superintendence in lieu of an appeal to compel review of the judgment. See Tessema v. Nextel Sys. Corp., 451 Mass. 1007, 1007-1008 (2008); Stevenson v. Mackey, 450 Mass. 1014, 1015 (2007); Pandey v. Ware Div. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 412 Mass. 1002, 1003 (1992) ("by choosing to pursue their claim as plaintiffs in the small claims session, the plaintiffs waived their right to appeal from any adverse rulings ... [and] where the plaintiffs chose to pursue the small claims procedure which is 'not exclusive but an alternative to the formal procedure of the District Court,' ... the single justice was warranted in refusing to grant relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3"). As in each of those cases, the single justice here was warranted in declining to grant extraordinary relief.
Judgment affirmed.